Zemac [sic], below, argues that it's immoral to set a minimum wage at all because it interferes with the freedom of a workers to enter a voluntary agreement with the owner, at whatever wage they choose. Questions: What about a heroin deal, which both sides agree to? How about prostitution? How about building a factory in the middle of a residential neighborhood, assuming the property owner and factory owner agree? Do we not as a society have a right to set some bounds for the common good? And sure, if minimum wage were raised to $100 an hour, it would kill jobs. If it were raised by a nickel, it wouldn't. So where is the line? That's where the economic studies come in handy. Too easy to dismiss that, and to take a stand on pure ideological grounds. Personally, I find Sitglitz's argument solid. It's in our common interests to support a liveable wage.

What is common to all of us? Inalienable individual rights; which means, the right to act on our own judgement, so long as we don't physically interfere with the rights of others to do the same.

Whose rights are being violated by a voluntary employment agreement? As to drugs and prostitution, the same question. Contracts that involve the violation of another's rights, such as hit contracts or an agreement to rob a bank or commit fraud, are not valid. As to that factory, the same question. Does it bring excessive noise, dangers to the neighbors from storage of volatile chemicals, or other physical threats to established neighbors who were there first? Otherwise, yes, that factory can get built. When I lived in Cranford, growing up, that's exactly what happened in my neighborhood. The town rezoned one half of our formerly residential/farming block for commercial, and a small Singer factory got built just a few dozen feet from our home. Did it disrupt our residential neighborhood? Essentially, no. The issue is complex, and planning boards certainly have a role to play, but a limited one.

One can only talk about "society," "the common good," or "common interests" in the context of the individual; the actual entity that makes up any group. If a single person's rights are violated--like that business owner and that kid who could have had a job, except that the state essentially forbade jobs at his skill level--then that law is no longer in the common good, but for the good of some at the expense of others. The principle of individual rights defines both the extent to which one may act, and the limits of one's actions. One may act, but not act to violate others' rights. The principle limits the individual but also, importantly, society's power to "set bounds for the common good." That's where the line is.

Yes, I have an ideological frame of reference; put simply, individual rights and free market capitalism. But, so do you, Tom. It's called collectivism.

One final point. Moran notes that "It's in our common interests to support a liveable [sic] wage." Yes, it is. That's why I support free market capitalism, as opposed to the mixed economy we have now. Economic freedom fosters rising productivity, which in turn fosters rising real wages. Any law mandating "livable" wages above the market rate (freely negotiated contracts) bestows unearned benefits on some at the expense of the violation of the rights of others--and ultimately kills jobs. It's not in the "common interest" to use government legal coercion to benefit a select few at the expense of others. It is in the common interest to foster political conditions--i.e., protect individual rights equally--that "lift all boats," and the value of everyone's dollars.

It was a pleasure directly engaging with the editors of the NJ Star-Ledger. I must have hit a nerve. I guess one could say that Tom Moran is the champion of the "common good," and I'm the champion of the victims of the champions of the common good.

Your response is essentially the same as mine, except you explain the ideologies involved more than I did. And you showed that there can be a legitimate function to be performed by what we usually call zoning or planning boards.

In your final point, I think your key idea is the concept of REAL wages & the actual value of a dollar, determined by productivity. What happens to the older worker who doesn't get that low level job because some kid gets it when there's no min. wage? He gets a better job that wouldn't be there WITH a min. wage. That's better than his being left with just a low level job and the kid having no job. All this happens because of the morality of free choice & free mkts. Morality leads to practicality, by cause & effect, morality being the cause. But it doesn't work the other way around. But the practical usually opens up more possibilities of the moral, of choices & freedom., caused by the right ideology.

Well, yeah, true. I 'forgot'(!) about that. There's probably more. When things are put in order & done right, all kinds of good things come out of it. But it's crucial to keep a grip on what causes it, and how it works. That can get harder when things get good, stay good & keep getting better. Aside from education, the best way to keep the generations from forgetting is to leave'em open, right now, to what happens when they ignore what they're taught: no safety net, no entitlements, and I think no sensible charity will give help with NO strings attached.

About Me

Greetings and welcome to my blog. My name is Michael A. (Mike) LaFerrara. I sometimes use the pen or "screen" name "Mike Zemack" or "Zemack" in online activism, such as posted comments on articles. “Zemack” stands for the first letters of the names of my six grandchildren. I was born in 1949 in New Jersey, U.S.A., where I retired from a career in the plumbing, building controls, and construction industries, and still reside with my wife of 45 years. The purpose of my blog is the discussion of a wide range of topics relating to human events from the perspective of Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, rational self-interest, and Americanism originated by Ayn Rand.

As Rand observed: “The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher.” I am certainly not the philosopher. But neither am I a field agent, or general. I am a foot soldier in that Objectivist army that fights for an individualist society in which every person can live in dignified sovereignty, by his own reasoned judgment, for his own sake, in that state of peaceful coexistence with his fellow man that only capitalist political and economic freedom can provide. While I am a fully committed Objectivist, my opinions are based on my own understanding of Objectivism, and should not be taken as definitive “Objectivist positions.” For the full story of my journey toward Objectivism, see my Introduction.

One final introductory note: I strongly recommend Philosophy, Who Needs it, which highlights the inescapable importance of philosophy in every individual's life. I can be reached at mal.atlas@comcast.net. Thanks, Mike LaFerrara.

Recommended Essays/Videos

Quotes I Like

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.—Francisco d'Anconia

I love getting older...I get to grow up and learn things. Madalyn, 5 years old, Montesorri student, and my grand-daughter

The best thing one can do for the poor is to not become one of them. Author Unknown

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Francis Bacon

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan

Thinking is hard work. If it weren't, more people would do it. Henry Ford

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries. Ayn Rand